Humor in the workplace

+

|的3 RHBK LANGUAGE WORKPLACE Acg_7 x 10 05/05/2仰仔命尹age 228

19

Humour in the Workplace 8ernie Chun Nam Mak

Introductlon

Humour was condemned as unproductive at work half a century ago due to the (rationalist) view that the workplace should be a serious s侃ing (see W的twood and Johnston 2013). However, there are numerous studies propounding the advantages of using humour at work. Early studies found that humour could provide infonnal catharsis to alleviate routine and unavoidable problems at work (see e.g. , Bradney 1957; CoIl inson 1988). Later research concentrated on investigating employees' bottom-up use of humour (see e.g. , Ackroyd and Thompson 1999), for example， ωchallenge superiors in a socially-acceptable way (Taylor and 8ain 20(3). ln the past decade, scholars have taken the view thathumour should be deemed functìonal to achieving a variety of sho仗- and long-tenn workpiace goals (see e.g. , Ladegaard 2009), such as boosting creativity (Holmes 2007) and socializing newcomers (Schnurr and Mak 2009).

With the gathering of momentum in research, humour has been defined differently across scholarly 自elds (see Ladegaard 2009 for a review). This chapter employs Holmes' (2000, 163) definition , considering humour instances to be “utterances that are identified by the analyst, on the basìs of paralinguistic , prosodic, and discoursal clues, as intended by the speakers to be amusing and perceived to be amusing by at least some participants." This defillition high1ights the interactional nature ofhumour and differentiates it from what psychologists call “the sense of humour弋 a cognitive ability. Holmes' notion of “utterances" can usefully be extended to include all fonns of communication including non-verbal interaction online (Cooper 2008).

The diverse de自nitions of humour are matched by various theories of humour. Different theories or frameworks serve to emphasize various aspects of humour (see Plester 2016). This chapter adopts classic 1ncongruity Theory, which takes the view that humour occurs when participants are amused by the overt inconsistencies between the expected interpretation and the unexpected encom1ter via the process of conversational implicature (Ellithorpe, Esralew, and Holbert 2014) . ln other words , humour occurs when an unexpected event invites participants to move from serious schemas to a fantasy assimilation in order to understand the underlying meaning to be communicated (Gray aud Ford 2013).

228

1 st PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

4 •

令

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

+

|的3 RHBK LANGUAGE WORKPLACE Acg_7 x 10 05/05/2017 評命-29

Humour in the Workplace

Humour in Face-To-Face Workplace Communication

ll1e phenomenon of using hwnour strntegica l1y at work originates from its inherent indirectness which enables colleagues to communicate face-threatening messages without causing offence (Taylor and Bain 2003), and its amusing nature which allows them to maintain or develop (superficial) harmony (Holmes and Mana 2006). Self-deprecating humour, fo1' managers, is found to be useful in mitigating top-down workplace talk (Holmes and de Bres 2012). For subordinates, it can attenu微 the embarrassment due ωinappropriate actions (Holmes, Marra, and Bums 2001). Hostile teasing, sometimes quite aggressive in nature, can implicate important disagreement (Schnurr and Zayts 2011) and criticism for work incompetency (Collinson 1988). Even innuendo can consolidate the bonding among colleagues (Vine el al. 2009), while humorous irony allows low-ranked employees to enact spiritual superiorîty (Wa位s 2007). Among the subtypes of humour, playful teasing seems to be widely used in defusing mental tension in critical moments (Koester 2010). Example 19.1 provides an example of how playful teasing can ajso be conducive to and indicative of the socialization process of a workplace newcomer.

Example 19.1 1

Context: Emma,2 a migrant worker from Philippines, is a newcomer to the Hong Kong office of Sunfl.ower Holdings Limited. Gavin and David, the assigned mentors, are teaching her to use a computer programme for business.

Emma: 。h 1 under-tick the ( ) box 2 David: what? Ithis\ 3 Emma: Iyeah\yeah 1 find out the problems (.) oh 4 David: oh you tick it ( ) give you zero (poi的) one minute 5 Gavin: you make it IHah\ 6 David IHah\ 7 Emma: loh HELP\(5) 1 leave that f10wer box blank is it? 8 Gavin: yeah 9 Emma: no more (.) no more other

10 David: no more lother\ II Ga吋n Ithis\thìs two all first (.) and then just (.) just keep this

13 Gavin: ( ) this for for future (.) if the customer want to ( ) 14 Emma: some seems M02 (.) not marked 15 Gavin: yes 16 Emma: okay ( ) other (.) two minute 17 Gavin: two minutes 18 David: Hah thirty (.) second 19 Gavin: twenty sec twenty seconds 20 David: Hal1 thirty Hah oh not more than twenty 21 Emma: ten times of it IHah\ 22 Gavin: IHah\ 23 Davîd: IHah\

229


命←

字

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

令

17133 R酬 LANGUAGE WORKPLACE AC9_7 x 10 05/05/2017 悍命P郁 230

Key Areas of Workplace Talk

Oavid's suggestion for Emma's fixing the problem in “zero point one minute", echoed by Ga vin 's encouragement “you make it" and 1aughter (I ines 3-5), is playf111 teasing. Emma responds to their humour by ye l1 ing “oh help", but this yields a five-second silence (Iine 7). However, similar teasing on the theme oftime-allowed is picked up by the two mentors again (Iines 19-21). This time Emma plays along wÎth it by jesting that she needs “ten times" their suggested time (l ine 22), which provokes lal1ghter. Humour taking place within such a mentoring activity for Emma not only creates light heartedness for leaming, b l1t also provides her with an opporttmity to reach a milestone ofsocialization. Conversely, her failure to respond humorously in the first instance iHustrates her newcomcr status that occasionally deprives her of full participation.

The analysis of Example 19.1 is consistent with Vinton (1 989) who testificd that humol1r cOl1 ld be a catalyst for integration into the workplace. Example 19.2, however, shows that hostile teasing which is elicited inappropriately may have the opposite effect.

Example 19.2

Context: Kevin, a new senior ship engineer to Cosmos Marine Engineering Services Limited, is hanging around a mechanical ship to fo l1ow the working progress of his te.am. Peter is a crew member who is expe討enced in 紀chnical work on the ship. They are arguing about the angle of a searchlight on the deck.3

Ke丸rin: what' re you Isetting\? 2 Peter: /setting\up those lights 3 Kevin: all on? 4 Peter: yes all/on\ 5 Kevin: /all\on but why don't you bow this down? 6 Peter: not bow it down and cast ligbt on the ship surface (.) now it 7 also casts light on that side 8 Kevin: you want to use it for fishing don 't you? Hah 9 Peter: no just on the ship surface (.) it's useless ( ) that place is

10 blocked from fishing 1] Kevin: do you want it for fishing? Hah 12 Peter: 110

((Peter keeps explaining why he does not bow the light down. Finally Kevin gives up.))

Kevin attempts to order Peter to bow down the searchlight using the indirect structure “why don 't you" (l ine 5). When Peter seriously explains his reason for keeping it horizontal (1ines 6- 7 and 9-10), Kevin playfully asks him with laughter if he wants to fish twice (l ines 8 and 11). This question is hostile teasing in the form of nonsense in that they are working in the professio l1 of marine engineering, overtly contrasting with the indigenous field of fishery in HonεKong. The meaning of Kevin's question C3nnot be taken literally (Dynel 2014). It implicitly carries Kevin 's negative evaluation of Peter's refusa1 to bow down the searchlight. The top-down humour is rejected probably due to the fact 曲的 Peter， a technici側， considers

230

1st PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

才←

+

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

令

17133 RHBK LANGUAGE WORKPωEA句_7 x 10 05/05/2仰悍命尹age 231


that he knows more about practical things , while Kcvin (only) knows theoretical and supervisory work. Peter's stance may also be due to Kevin's new membership, a factor which may outweigh his superîority in the official ranking.

Example 19.2 indicates that workplace hwnour does not always work (Mallett and Wapshott 2014). lnappropriate play may not only fail to convey a superior冶 intention but also cause negative consequences to management (Pundt and Herrmann 2015). Only when the joker behaves appropriately and other participants decode COlγectly will a humorous exchange end productively. The uses and misuses ofhumour în face-to也ce workplace interaction are however not limited to those discussed and exemplified above (see e.g., Butler 2015; Gunnarsson 2009; Holmes and de Bres 2012 for overviews). 1 now turn to an investigation of humorous exchanges among colleagues through instant-messaging and microbloggîng.

Humour in Instant-Messaging and Microblogging Workplace Communication

Few studies have investigated onIine humour, and even fewer the use of it when colIeagues interact on computers. A handfuI of earlier research studies investigated the violations of traditionallinguistic mles (e.g., Grîωan Maxims, adjacency pairs) for play扣1 communîcation in chatrooms (HeITÎl1g 1997). More recently, works centred on Facebook are on the increase, looking il1to teachers' humorous posts for educational purposes (lmlawi and Gregg 2014), students' canned jokes to reshape identities in the aftermath of a political event (Moalla 2015), organizations' pages created to ridicule existing language policy (Sherman and Svelch 2015), 也ld use呵， perceptions of sexist humour (Strain, Saucier, and Martens 2015). Some concentrate on the humorous (anti)racist messages on forums (Malmqvist 2015); others examine humour about the relation between human beings and IT in the broader online context (Shifman and Blondheim 2010) and rebellious jokes against the political correctness of mass media 出at

circulate among Web 2.。他lank 2013). While these studies provide insight<; into the role of humour in the Digital Age, there is a need for more discussion of the use of online humour withín a workplace's Community of Practice (CofP) (see King this volume).

Humour in Instant-Messaging Among Colleagues

lnstant messengers had gained popularity among young teenagers with the development of ICQ in 1996, but the leisure pursuits faded out when many ofthem (e.g., MSN ‘ AfM) were developed with a more formal interface and introduced Ìnto the workplace in the 2000s (Handel and Herbsleb 2002). lnstant messengers are s。在ware that supports users to exchange one舟n

one and one舟n胸many messages instantly with their contacts over the Intemet (Baron 2004; Crystal 2006). Many have been integrated (or developed) into social-network sites where the technical affordances are more fiexible and multifaceted than the early protocols (Jones 2010). Researchers bave argued that instant messengers are upstaging workplace talk (e.g., Darics 2010; Stephens, Cow泊， and Houser 2011), for instance, through providing an extra means for co l1eagues' work reminders (Quall-Haase, Cothrel, and Wellman 2005), small talk (Chung and Nam 2007), and formation of an onlille community (Debbabi and Rahman 2004).

The additional arena provided by instant messengers in the workplace often engenders 由euse ofhumour among colleagues online. Example 19.3 provides a wordplay installce that could only occur in the computer context.

231

18t PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

斗會一

爭

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

+

17133 R~做圳GUAGE WORKPLACE Acg_7 x 10 05/05


Example 19.3

Context: ln Superstar Electronics Holdings, Martin and Tommy are at the managerial rank albeit working in different areas. Martin cleans the database for marketing in an upcoming industrial fa汀， and finds that the model 9407 has become out-dated. He inforrns Tommy of this in Windows Live Messenger.

Martin we used to make money by this model and 9407 2 when w98 was popular everywhere 3 Tommy computer tech is Iike this . . . 4 as we always look forward the new . . . 5 but 1 still keep a sony 3.5' and maxell 5.25' fdc;

6 Martin really? still have the drives to read them? 7 Tonuny no just for memories and history 8 Maliin we loved them when we still used dos 6.2 9 dir/w/p

10 copya:\*.gifc:\photos 11 Tommy yes 1 still remember some commands 12 cd.. . 13 Martin c:\ rename a:\instal l.exe uninstaJ l.exe 14 Tom日1y Hahahaaaaaa 15 those days we thought dos was more convenient than w3.1 16 Martin yes but w95 changed everything

When the topic changes from the old items to development of computers (lines 1-4), Martin and Tommy evoke nostalgia by creating a cultural world where MS-DOS jargon stìll had overt prestige in computing (l ines 5-12).η1e imagined MS-DOS era is extended from the workrclatcd frame , but resu1ts in humour using DOS commands. Mar吋吋t吋in 句'Pc臼s

a缸:\\ir訂nstaλl l. exe uni甘ins芯stal 1. exe" (l ine 13均)， a silly comma剖n吋d t出ha前t will replace the name of a file tω O

ins討ta叫11 a program with t由he name of a file to uninstall thereby triggering massive errors whenever these files are opened afterwards. The suggestion evokes a prolonged written expression of laughter from Tommy indicated by “hahaha" followed by a series of "a" (l ine 14). Thc jargon-based humour (如tcGhie 1991) grants them an identity as part of a generation that had grown up working with MS-DOS.

While the humour in Example 19.3 depends upon cognitive symbolic behaviour, the wordplay in Example 19.4 appears to rely on exploitation of the nonns of instant messaging to tease and engage in banter.

Charles plays with ellipsis dots and the connectivity between the pronoun “you" and its possessive form "your" to constmct a ftirtation (lines 3-7). Scholars of computer-mediated communication have agreed that in order to type fast to maintain a sense of instantanei旬，instant-messenger users tend to split continuous utterances into several smaller units by pressing the enter key after typing each segment (e.g. , 8aron 2004; Chung and Nam 2007). Each press results in a single line or fragrnent ofa message on the receiver's window. Moreover, to avoid interruption, the sender wil\ use ellipsis dots to signal that the utterance remains unfìnished (Mak 2014). These nom1S are adapted by Charles for use in wordplay making 扣n

232


→學一

今

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

|的3 RH肌

Humour in the Workplaιe

Example 19.4

Context: Jenny, a new merchandising trainee to Superstar Electronics Holdings, went to the Hong Kong Trade Development Council (TDC) for some registration work for the upcoming industrial faÍr. Charles, an integral member of the team, greets her when he sees her online in Windows Live Messenger again.

Jenny

when you went to the tdc today . . . . . do you know how much 1 miss you . . ha?! do you know how much 1 miss you . .

. . r buyer who confinned the order with 5000 bkO 1 Oa last week?

Charles Je1llly Charles

Jenny Charles

11

呵，ι1dA

且可ζJfO

呵，，

wakakaaa surprised? fortunately, you miss my buyer only, not me! but the buyer is a man are you gay? (101) good job today?

Jenny Charles Jenny

Charles

oonynu'i

弓4

令3A

且可

il111

今of Jenny, who initially seems sllrprised as shown by the combination of question and exclamation marks (line 5). When Jenny realizes the tru曲， she counters with a clever innllendo that imposes a "gay" identity on Charles (lines 10一 12) ， which elicits a "lor' (laugh Ollt 101ld) response (1 ine 13). Here Jenny's response could be considered a bantering techniqlle indicating her abil.ity to co l1aborate in constructing mischievous humour on a slippely topic, just like Charles.

The technical affordances of instant messengers and the Intemet play a critical role in the humour instances 仕om my dataset. ln addition to the traditional elements such as the head icon, user nickname and status message, the latest inst.ant messengers are preloaded with animated emoticons, the function of prevÎewing an uploaded file or a hyperlink, and extension to the user profile or blog. My participants are found to exploit these affordances, together with the innovative use of I.nternet slang, to do humour with colleagues. Such humour has diffused into the backroom online talk within a professional ∞ntext， which normatively Învolves po1itic commw1Ìcation.

Humour ín Microblogging Among Colleagues

A microblog is a broadcasting device similar to the traditional bl嗯， bllt the content is usuaIly shorter, more casual 副ld impromptu (Jansen el αl. 2009; Lee 2011). Some famous examples of microblogs are Twitter and Facebook Status Update. Status Updates enable users to “share what 也ey do andlor 由i凶( 'at the moment' through short messages . . . with or without embedded mtùtimedia" (Mak and Chui 20 日， 96). The post will be broadcasted on the fi.rst page of their

233


4秒一

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

+

17133 R酬凶NGUAGE WORKPωEA句_7 x 10 05/05


friends , who can respond, share，叫“1ike" (see Appendix). A microblog post can convey many emotions to different participants, and may express many emotions simultaneously.

Microblogs have been used by organizations to interact with the general publ此， potential partners, and customers (Zhao and Rosson 2009). However, in the context of Facebook, s組切s

updates may be used intemally by co l1eagues as a medium of communication beyond the constraints of \vork hours and physical distance. 8elow is an exemplar of the use of a S~îtus update in consolidating a presumption within a Co fP.

Example 19.5

Context: Edmund, the assístant manager, is supposed to work in the manager's room. Because of a shortage of front-line crew, he has often temporarily been required to take over the cashìer role to help them. He ìs good at “ fast trade" (persuading customers to buy extra food after they have ordered what they initial1y wanted), and here he broadcasts this on his Facebook Status Update.

[photo] Edmund ? my col1閉眼les about to refuse to work with me la

Friday at 0:21 [Y側， Emil)九 Wilson and other 4 persolls like this!]

[photo] \Vilson absolutely, i will be the 1st! u try not to go to 4 the cashier! everytime you go bills q up

Frìday at 0:22 [1 person likes this] 5 [photo] 阱1ike so serious

Friday at 1 :04 6 [photo] Edmund they said everytime 1 work the biz wiII be better

Friday at 1: 10 [1 person likes this J 7 [photo] W iIson this is the proof from my experience with u!

Friday at 1: 10 8 [photo] Jerry then you lleed thillk yoursel f1 cashier will explode

Fridayat 1 :35 9 [photo] Derek haha- morning shift with you biz really very gd

Friday at 1 :36

The reason that Edmund's colleagues are about to refuse to work with him is that his fasttl叫e skills have led tοbusy work (lines 1 斗，6-7). The “ la" in line 2 is a transliteration of the Cantonese exclamatioll “啦" to imply the speaker's (fake) disappointrnent. This joking remark not onJy is recognized through the nurnber of "1ikes" on Facebook, but also attracts (superficially) cliticizing responses. They should be interpreted as rnock irnpoliteness for friendliness (Culpeper 1996) based on the assumption that more orders point to better development of business (biz). This is evidenced by Edmund's grand self-confessioll of the meaning ofhis post (1 ine 6). Following the non-serious frame , Jerry perfonns playful teasing by warning Edmund that "the cashier wil1 explode" (lille 8), and then Derek responds to the humour in sing-song Jaughter with explicit compliments for Edmund's fast-trade skills, which are “ really verγgd" (good) (1 ine 9). This marks a positive end to the back-and-forth humour appreciating Edmund's transactional accomplishments.

234

18t PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

→會一

+

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

+

|的3 附BK LANGUAGE WO聊以CE Acg_7 x 10 05/05/2017 仲命乎age 235

Humour ín the Workplace

The content of the self-deprecating humour in Example 19.5, which is strange from a management viewpoint in Hong Kong culture, allows Edmund to present himself as more accessible to his subordinates while engaging the workforce (Pundt and Hemnann 2015). It is deep down a playful exchange after work that recapitulates the discourse of individual business performance in the fast-food catering field. The humour refers to on-site business issues in office hours, but takes place after midnight when everyone is off du句， and has left the workplace.

Humour in the Workplace in the Digital Age

The topic of humour in the workplace has been explored over the past three decades. Before the popularization of the lntem帥， colleagues tended to joke face to face. Such humour could be conducive to optimization of business accomplishments and the development of collaborative relationships, but simultaneously it might have adverse effects if inappropriately initiated or decoded. Humour has become pa此 of professionalism in some industries (Tanay, Wiseman, and Roberts 2014). Owing to the adaptability of humour and its potential to bend official codes 01' neutralize institutiollalized power dis個nce for resolving workplace problems, acquisition and practice of it cOllstitute the establishment of membership, enactment of expertise, and exercise of judgement within the professional commw1Îty of practice, as Examples 19.1 and 19.2 il1ustrated. Effective users of workplace hmnour demonstrate intel1ectual skill in employing hwnour strategies to enact both professional knowledge, and inte.rpersonal skills in their workplace roles.

Humour and the DecJine in SoCÎal Etiquette 的 the Workplace

When taking place in instant messagiug and microblogging among colleagues, humour appears in the creative fonns of wordpl呵， innuendo, and mixed teasing. Although colleagues are still constrained by the existing nonns ofthe shared repertoires of doing humour in a Co作，digi個1 devices that allow diverse topical choices, rapid topical shifts but slow pace create little social pressure for participants to conform (Crystal 2006). The infonnal nature of computermediated communication provides vast possibilities to joke depending upon their own preferences or perceived intimacy with others. As showll in the examples, humour may be task-oriented, entertainment-directed, rapport-aimed, problem-based, or a mix ofthese. Instant messengers and microblogs have seemingly escalated heterogenei吟， ambi眼lity and multiplicity of humour and i倡“nctions in the workplace. Co l1eagues' online humour is more than a discursive strategy to minimize the feeling of dehumanization resulting from computer work nowadays.

The Blending of the Form of Humour with Workplace Discourse

Humour that occurs in instant messaging and microblogging is charactelized by heterogeneous uses of punctuatioll, emoticons, acronyms, etc. as c1ues. These symbolic, semio-graphic, phonographic, and logographic cues have been identified in studies of synchronous computermediated communication (Djordjilovic 2012). They are not only intended to maintaín spontaneity and brevity in online comnnmication (Darics 2(10), but also to portray a humorous frame that signals participants to suspend nomlal inte巾retations (c f. Grugulis 2002). Example 19.3 displayed the typographic use of computer language for humour. Equally important is the ready-made functions afforded by instant messengers and microblogs. Example 19.4

235


→學」

令

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

命

17133 RHBK 山GUAGE WORKPLACE AC9_7 x 10 削仰17 悍@尹age 236


indìcated the nonnative division of instant messages could be adapted for humour. These predesigned functions stimulate their users ωexplore their potential to be employed flexìbJy and creatively (8arton and Lee 2013). The capacìty to perfonn humour in this way leads to pl盯al

intertextualìty and multimodality as the conversation unfolds (see Jones 2(10). The interpenetratìve ìnstances also encompass textu訓， visual, and audìo modes to fonn an aesthetic experience (8ezemer and Kress 2008), thereby blending or redefining the broader workplace context.

Humour as a Tool to Reconstruct Offline Identity and Power in the Workplace

When co l1eagues convey hwnour through instant messengers and mìcroblo阱， the involved identity construction often accretes in an intangible state of flux. Since they also meet and know each other tàce to face in the workplace, there may be little motivation for them to fake or modify their characteristics as these are already well known to their colleagues (Handel and Herbsleb 2002). Instead, they tend to wield or reshape their perceived offiine images or characteristics by behaving in an unstable hwnorous manner on the platfonns that do not officially require them to operate inside their shared repertoires. Humour in itse)f encourages personalization (Holmes 2006), while use of the two digital devices needs a personal account that invites individualization (cf. Anandarajan et a/. 2010). Colleagues in this way may feel free to joke about whatever they think comfortable, thereby revealing many associated or conflictual characteristics. The large (sense ot) autonomy reduces the demarcations among different identities, blending them into a hybridi.zed and complicated construct. As shown in Examples 19.3 and 19.4, colleagues could joke around generation, gender, and work-related issues at the same time. This finding echoes scholars (Schnurr 2013; Vine et a/. 2009) who demonstrated that colleagues nowadays tend to enact different characteristics simul個neously

reflecting the complexitìes and penneability of workplace interaction, and then subsequently produce a synthesis of iåentities.

The reconstnIction of power through instant messaging and microblogging among colleagues is manifested and contro l1ed by their intellectual and information technology skills. As humour challenges the standards and inertia ofprofessional communication, power is always negotiated when it occurs ìn workplace interaction (Taylor and 8ain 2003; Vine et a/. 2009). Through thcir manipulation of digital devices, colleagues reveal personal cleverness by taking control of content, language, symbols, numbers, and the preloaded functio肘，的partially indicated in Example 19 .4. Their use is re自ned by the norms of instant messaging and microblogging: time lags between exchanges are tolerated, so colleagues have more time to manage their thoughts; the instant message or microblog is oot displayed until the sender presses the enter key or the "post" bu肘。n ， so users enjoy greater freedom to edit the (1umlOrous) me

236


→動一

命

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

今

|的3R酬 LANGUAGE WORKPLACE Acg_7 x 10 削間17 悍鈔乎age 237


Conclusion

The increasing needs of computer work may limit the humour among some colleagues, but they can still be playful using digital devices. This chapter started from a general discussion on humour in the workplace, and moved into examinìng several examples of authentic data from face-to-face workplace settings ωinstant messaging and microblogging in Hong Kong. The analyses and inferences indicated that humour could be a tool to be employed purposefully for varìous transactional and relational p 叮poses ， and t出ha叫t when introduced to online pla前吋t叮白f扣ormsit could be manifested m泊or閃eo肘r less differently f白hτ'01'have added to the qu叫lω叫a訓Iit守y of extra but erratic t臼empora洹叫吼1 ， s叩pa州tia叫1 ， and psychological spaces to perfonn humour, which helps extend the work relationship beyond normal work hours and the physical sìte. Therefo時， scholars are recommended to look at any innovative use of humour and the involved computer-related processes in the Infonnation Age. As humour involves risktaking (and is face-threatening) despitβthe cheery s叮face，“如何 research should pay more attention to the miscommunication caused by colleagues' use ofit 011 the lntemet where clues are not always sufficient and contextual infonnation is fluctuating for participants at different receipt settings. Subtypes of humour Iike innuendo and ironic humour can be used maladaptively or (mis)interpreted as sexual harassment 01' personal attack. By and large, employees and senior management could c011sider tbe speech event openly but handle it careful1y, particular行 il1 Asian societies wbere face , relationship, and networking are deemed exceedingly crucial at work.

Further Reading

Plester (2009) draws on empirical data from a three-year study to investigate the influence of humour on workplace well-beil1g, for example to alleviate tensio11 and soften harsh directives. Plester (2016) starts from an illvestigation of classic humour theories, discussing the bright and dark sides of organizationa1 humour using data collected from ethnographic research and ex個cts selected from published sources over a period of 12 years. Furtado, Carrieri, and Bretas (2014) examine the use of online bumour to pro切5t against resignations and outsourcing and to ridicule official discourse and deci5io115.

Related Topics

Rapport management; Corporate settings; Relational talk; Narratives; Leadership

Appendix

Transcription conventions for the audio-recorded exanψlω

HELP Hab (.)

Capitals indicate emphatic stress Laughter Minor pause (of up to one second)

(3) Longer pause (of up to t\vo seconds or above; the number insider the bracket') indicates the length ofthe pause)

. . .1. . λ. .

. . .1. . 人. . ( )

Overlap (which originates from simuJtaneous speech) Unclear or inaudible utterance


→學一

237

令

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

爭

|的3 RHB叫NGUAGE WORKPLACE ACQ_7 x 10 05/05/2017 評鈔尹age 238


Photo 01 the 100tJator of the update Nameolthe 帥itia t or 01 the updale / _ Contenta 01 the upðate )(

1 need ð holiday /' ______-. Oate and time 01 the upda悔

Numoor ot "like"

Photo 01 the respor、ðent -

Name of the respondent

自E二::J ' [詛明.1.. '10 1.1 l ' S()L~ - : ~ ‘ 明

l尚Jt.ie. S 人酥油好 !

nO..no..no...k國!p WO成納9 .. 1" !!1

l O!!l 1l !:: 1:59'

間可 KE盯 1 "10 1= !1 t; 2:41 .

x

，~I X

研間。闖闖耐 ho甸甸回

ι=ι

Fìgure 19.1 Sample of a facebook status update

? A question or rising intonation 1 see bu- lncomplete or cut-off speech

也 Contents 01 Ihe response

((Chr1S joins in)) Transcriber's additional infonnation in double round brackets

Transcriplion conventions for the instant messαging 的amples

101 that guy . . no help Chunks of an utterance sent by the same user Ü One hour passed)) Transcriber's additional infomlation in double round brackets

Notes

Thc examples in this chapter come from a dataset of25 hours of face-to-facc organizational talk, a pool of78,000 English words of workplace instant messaging, and a database of over 100 rnícroblogs posted by the colleagues of a company. They were collected from eight Hong Kong workplaces. See Appendix for Transcription Conventions.

2 AIl names of people and organizations used in the ex.amples are pseudonyms. 3 This conversation was origina l1y in Cantonese. The 甘叫“計ption was translated into English and

dOllble-checked by a native English speaker.

References

Ackroyd, Stephen, and Paul Thompson. 1999. Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage. Anandarajan, Murugan, Maliha Zaman, Qizhi D剖， and Bay Arinze. 2010. “ Generation Y Adoptíon of

Instant Messaging: An Ex.amination of the lmpact of Social Usefulness and Media Richness of Use Richness ." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communicatio l/ 53 : 132-143.

Baron , Naomi S. 2004. “ See YOtl Online: Gender Issues in College Stlldent Use oflnstant Messaging." Jou.malofLaflguαge and Social Psychology 23: 397-423.

Barton, David, and Cannen Lee. 2013. Lαnguage Online: lnvestigating Digital TE己可ts and Practices. London: Routledge.

Bezemer, Je仟" and Gunther Kress. 2008. “Writing in Multimodal Texts: A Social Semiotic Account of Designs for Leaming." 1科'itten Communicatioll 25: 166一 195 .

238


→@一

令

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

合

|的3R酬以NG州E WORKPLACE Acg_7 x 10 05/05


Blank, Trevor J. 2013. The Last Laugh: Folk Humor, Celehr旬! Culture, and Mass-Mediated Disasters in the Digita/ Age. Madison, WI: TIle Universíty of Wisconsin Press‘

Bradney, Pamela. 1957. “TIle Joking Relationship in Indus訂y." HUn!an Re/ations 10: 179一 187 .

Butler, Nick. 2015. “Joking Aside: Theorizing Laughter in Orgaruzations." Cu/ture αnd Organizatíon 21 : 42-58.

Chung, Donghun, and Chang S. Nam. 2007.“An Analysis of the Variables Predicting Instant Messenger Use." New Media and Society 9: 212-234.

Collinson, David. 1988. “En訝的eringH山no叮: Masc叫ini旬， Joking and Conflict ín Shopfloor Relations." OrganÎZation Studies 9: 181-199.

Cooper, Cecily. 2∞8. “Elucidating the Bonds ofWorkplace Hwnor: A Relational Process Model." lluman Relations 61 : lO87 -1 115.

Ctystal, David. 2006. Language αnd the lnternet. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpcper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy oflm仰lîteness." Journal 01 Pragmatics 25: 349- 367. Darics, Erika. 2010. “Relational Work in Synchronous Text-Based CMC ofVirtual Teams." ln Handbook

01 Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Str駝的res al1d Social lnteraction, edited by Rotimi Taiwo, 830-85 1. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Debbabi , Mour叫， and Mahfuzur Rahman. 2004. “ The War of Presence and Instant Messaging: Right Protocols and APIs." ln Pl忱eedings 01 the 2004 Consumer Communicatio l1s and Networking Conference, 341-346. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.

Djordjilovic, Olga. 2012. “Displaying and Developing Team ldentity in Workplace Meeting• A Multimodal Perspective." Discourse Studiω14: 111 一 127.

Dynel, Marta. 2014. “ Isn't 1t lronic? Defining the Scope of Humorous lrony." 的/mor 27: 619-639. Ellithorpe, Morgan, Sarah Esralew, and Lance Holbert. 2014. “ Putting the ‘Self in Self-Deprecation:

When Deprecating Humor about Minorities is Acceptable." Humor 27: 401 -422. F叮tado， Raquel Alves, Alexandre de Padua Carri eri , and Paula Femandes Furbino Bretas. 2014.

“Humor on the Intemet: Workers Employ New Strategy to Protest against Resignations and Outsourcing." Revista de Administraçåo β'åo Paul，吵吵: 33-44.

Gray, Jared A., and Thomas E. Ford. 2013. “The Role of Social Context in the Interpretation of Seχist Humor." Humor 26: 277-293.

Grugu1is, Irena. 2002. “ Nothìng Serious? Candidates' Use ofHumour in Management Training." Huma l1

Relatiol1S 55: 387-406. Gunnarsson, Bri仗-L

239


→學一

令

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

今

17133 R酬 LANGUAGE WORKPLACE Acg_7 x 10 05/05/2017 悍命尹age 240


Ladcgaard, Hans 1. 2009. “Politeness, Power and Control: The Use of Humour in Cross-Cultural Telecommunications." In Professional Communication: Collaboration between Academics and Practitioners, edited by Winnie Cheng, and Ken.neth C. C. Kong, 191-209. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Lee, Carmen K. M. 2011. “Microblogging a.nd Status Updates on Facebook: Texts and Practices." ln Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media , edited by Crispin Thurlow, and Kristi.ne Mrocz吭，110-128. Ncw York: Oxford University Press.

Mak, Bemie C. N. 2014. “ lnstant Messaging in Office Hours: Use of ElI ipsís Dots at Work and Hong KO l1g Cu1ture." l"ternαtional Journa/ of Language Studies 8: 25-50.

Mak, Bemie C. N. , and Hin-leung Chui . 20例13.Co】)mmu叩mi句t叩yo叫fPru羽缸部c叩;沈泊t廿ic∞e in Fa、ac∞eb切O∞O忱k Status Up抖州3χ吋da泌te郎s'?" Dαi:‘s陀的CαωOLηurse. Context and Media 2: 94一102.

Malle仗， Oliver， and Robert Wapshott. 2014. “Jnformality a.nd Employmel1t Relationships in Sma l1 Fírms: Humour, Ambiguity and Straight-Talking." British Journal of Management 25: 1 的一 132.

Malmqvi刻， Kar1. 20 15 . “Satire, Racist Humour and the Power of (Un) l.aughter: On the Restrained Nature of Swedish Online Racíst Discourse Targeting EU-Mif,rrants Begging for Money." Discourse and Society 26: 733- 753 .

McGh悶， Caroline. 199 1.“The Jargon ofWellington Taxi Dispatchers." Weilington Working Papers in Linguisfics 3: 2G-35.

Moalla, Asma. 2015. “ Incongruity in the Ge.neration and Perception of Humor on Facebook in the Aftermath ofthe Tunisían Revolution." .Journal ofPragmatics 75: 44-52.

Plester、 Barbam 2009. “Healthy Humour: Using Humour to Cope at Work." New Z.ωland Joumal of Social Sciences Online 4: 89-102 .

PJester, Barbara 2016. The Complexity of WorJ..place Humour. New York: Springer. Pundt, Alexander, a.nd Felícia Herrmann. 2015. “入何i1 iatíve and Aggressive Humour in Leadership and

Their Relationship to Leader-Member Exchange." .Journal of Occupational and Orgαnizational Psychology 88: 108一 125 .

Quan-Haase, A.nabel , Joseph Cothrel , and Barry Wellman. 2005. “ In船nt Messaging for Co l1aboration: A Case Study of a High-Tech Firm." Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication 10. Retrieved from http://jcmc . indiana.eduJvolI0/issue4/quan-h個se.htmJ.

Schnu汀， Stephanie. 2013 . Exploring Professional Communication: Langua

240


4學一

今

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

令

|的3R酬 LANGUAGE WORKPLACE Acg_7 x 10 05/0叫7 呼命-Page 241


Watts, Jacqucline. 2007. “Can't Take a Joke? Humour as Resistance, Refuge and Exc\usion in a Highly Gendered Wor仕kpl旭ac∞e." Fe.仰mi圳ni.叫iSf1l α仰nd PSJη}'chology 1竹7: 259一-26“6.

Westwood. Robert 1., and AlIanah Johnston. 2013. “Humor in Organization: From Function to Resis隘的C." HU f1lor 26: 219-247.

Zhao, D吋in， and Mary B. Rosson. 2009. “How and Why People Twitter: 訂1C Role That Microblogging Plays in Infonnal Communication at Work." In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 lnternational Conference on Supporting Group Work, 243-252. Sanibel Island, FL: ACM Press.

241


→學一

Bernie Mak

文字方塊

Humor in the workplace

Documents

Transcript of Humor in the workplace